Dr. S. Ching Chyang Ching v. 1.The Registrar Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Chennai

Tribunal, Chennai, the 2nd Respondent herein and quash the same.(inW.P.No.29158 of 2002)3.directing the respondent to send the petitioner to the DistrictMedical Board Cuddalore forthwith for getting necessary medicalopinion with regard to skull fracture and writers cramp to give theappropriate posting order as already directed by the Hon'bleTamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai – 104 in its order inO.A.No.3198/97 pronounced on 10.11.99 and consequently regularisethe period from 7.6.04 till the date of receiving the medicalopinion from the board as duty period with full service attendantbenefits (in W.P.No.35442 of 2004)4.to direct the respondents to revoke the applicants suspension orderdated 2.3.95 immediately and properly, reinstate him to dutyforthwith preferably in the Chennai City on Medical /Personal /legal grounds and consequently regularise the entire spell of periodfrom 2.3.1995 to 8.11.2001 as duty period with full consequentialattendant service benefits and the period from 9.11.2001 till thedate of receiving appropriate posting order from R1 or R2 ascompulsory wait period (in W.P.No.32200 of 2005)5.to call for the entire records pertaining to proceedings of theDirector of School Education relating to the promotion of PG(Commerce) Assistants for the year 96-97 probably issued in I weekof november 96 and give suitable direction to the respondents topromote him as PG Assistant (Commerce) in the Tamilnadu HigherSecondary service or lecturer, educational technology division inthe District Institute of Education and Training with retrospectiveeffect (November 96) or to any other post (carrying PG Assistantscale of pay) involving less writing work and more supervisory)practical skill taking into consideration his physical disabilityknown as 'Writer Cramp' Confirmed by the District Medical Board,Cuddalore on 9.6.93 and the civil surgeon of the governmentHospital, Tindivanam on 6.10.96 (in WP No.3013 of 2006)6.Direct the respondents to grant a minimum annual interest ofeighteen percent for the salary arrear already ordered by Hon'bleTribunal in OA 2389/95 on 26.2.97 and also reimburse to theapplicant a sum of Rs.20,000/- only spent by him towards hislitigation before the Hon'ble Chennai High Court and the Hon'bleTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai 104 (in WP 3014 of 2006)7.to direct the respondents to grant an advance increment to theapplicant w.e.f.1.11.92 and disburse the consequential arrear forthe period from 1.11.92 till date with annual interest of 18% forthe delayed payment of arrear plus of Rs.1000/- towards the courtexpenses incurred by the applicant. (in WP No.3015 of 2006) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.Directing the respondents to sanction a third incentive (fifth andsixth advanced increment) to the applicant w.e.f. The day followingthe last day of the M.Com degree examination passed by him in June89 by judiciouly reviewing the G.O.Ms.No.1023 dated 9.12.93 withthe spirit of social justice and as consolation for not providingany promotional opportunity to the applicant for a quarter of aentry. (in WP No.3016 of 2006)9.direct the second respondent to give order of the revocation ofsuspension in RC No.5566/EKI/95 dated 15.9.95 of the secondrespondent and direct the 1st respondent to immediately reinstatethe applicant in a job in the P.G.Assistant Cadre involving lesswriting and more supervising nature and finally regularise theperiod from 15.9.95 to 15.10.97 as duty period with consequentialattendant benefits. (W.P.No.3017 of 2006)10.Set aside the impugned proceedings in RC No.25363/C1/97 dated13.5.97 of the respondent direct him to post the applicant forthwithas Deputy Inspector of School and consequently regularise the spellof period from 1.10.95 onwards as duty period with consequentialattendant benefits (in W.P.3018 of 2006)11.to quash the proceedings in R.C.No.44154/EK2/97 dt.27.11.97 ofDEE, Chennai – 6 enclosing the impugned true copy of the suspensionrevocation order in R.C No.5566/EK1/95 dated 15.9.1995 of theDirector of Elementary Education, direct the Respondent to serveforthwith the legally valid and correct suspension revocation orderto the applicant and consequently regularise the spell of periodfrom 15.9.95 to 31.10.98 as compulsory wait period or duty periodas this is the period of administrative delay being caused by thesecond respondent to serve the appropriate legally valid suspensionrevocation order to the applicant and record his acknowledgment asproof for completion of service (the period between the date ofdecision to revoke suspension and the actual date of serving theorder of revocation. (in W.P.No.3019 of 2006)12.to set aside the order in the proceedings of the Joint Director ofSchool Education (Personnel) Madras-6 in his R.C.No.74866/C20/C5/95dt.9.10.98 direct the respondents to post the applicant as AEO orDeputy Inspector of School taking into consideration the DistrictMedical Boards opinion dt.9.6.93 and sub rule 3 of the Rule 10 ofthe Tamilnadu Fundamental Rules and consequently regularise theperiod from 15.9.95 to 15.12.98 as duty period with consequentialattendant service benefits (in W.P.No.3020 of 2006)13.Directing the respondents to include the applicants name in thepanel (1.1.99) for promotion as P.G.Assistant of High School, HeadMaster during the year 1998-99 without any prejudice to the furtherorder to be passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.7224/97dt.10.9.97 and O.A.10041/98 dt.4.12.98 and also pending disposal of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O.A.680/97 dt.26.1.97 in (W.P.3021 of 2006)14.to set aside the order in his proceedings No.41352/EK2/95 (2)dated 29.4.99 of the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai- 6direct the respondents to pay the applicant the subsistenceallowance at the rate of 75% of pay from 15.9.95 to 29.2.2000 with12% simple annual interest revising the scale of pay from 1.1.96onwards, with increments on 1.10.95, 1.10.96,1.10.97 1.10.98 and1.10.99 and consequently direct to issue a fresh order of revocationof suspension and revised posting order in accordance with medicalopinion dated 24.11.99 and 27.11.99 (in W.P.No.3022 of 2006)15.call for the records set aside the impugned order inRc.No.118247/C3/C20/2000 dated 8.11.2000 and 29.12.2000 of the firstrespondent and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant asDeputy Inspector of Schools in the city of chennai on medicalgrounds and consequently regularise the period from 11.8.2000onwards till 15.2.2001 as duty period or compulsory wait period (inW.P.No.3023/06)16.to direct the respondents to promote the applicant asP.G.Assistant (Commerce)in the Tamilnadu Higher Secondary service orits equivalent posts with retrospective effect from 13.6.89 withfull monetary benefits within a month from today following thequashing of the charge memo in Rc.No.36352/C1/86 of the CEO of theerstwhile South Arcot District, Cuddalore in O.A.8077/97 by thisHon'ble Tribunal on 28.4.2000 ( in W.P.No.3024/06)17.directing the first respondent to take steps to extend the serviceof the petitioner upto 65 years / 60 years or take steps to disposeall the pending cases of the petitioner within a reasonable time ortransfer these cases to the arbitration and Conciliation body for anearly settlement (in W.P.No.37775/07)For Petitioner : Party-in-personFor Respondents : Mr. S. Rajasekar, Spl. GPCOMMON ORDERHeard the arguments of the petitioner, who appeared in person,and Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader(Education) representing the official respondents and have perusedthe records.2.The petitioner in all these writ petitions is the sameperson who was appearing in person. When the first batch of caseswas listed, it was heard on 21.02.2008. Thereafter, the petitionermentioned the pendency of some other writ petitions and they were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directed to be listed on 26.02.2008. The petitioner was also heardon that day. Subsequently, when orders were reserved in both batchesof cases, the petitioner sent a telegram to this Court and requestedthat judgment should not be pronounced for a period of three weeksand prayed for an adjournment. Such a conduct on the part of thepetitioner is highly reprehensible and he should desist from sendingsuch telegrams to the Judges of this Court by giving directions tothe Court as to when judgments are to be pronounced.3.The petitioner was working in the Education Department andbelonged to the Tamil Nadu Education Subordinate Service. Hisoriginal name was Chandrasekaran and subsequently, by a GazetteNotification, he had changed his name as Ching Chyang Ching.Subsequently, he added a prefix to his name and started callinghimself as Dr. Ching Chyang Ching. When questioned as to where hegot the Degree, he frankly conceded that he was practising a newsystem of medicine.4.Be that as it may, the petitioner ever since the year 1997started filing cases before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal[for short, 'Tribunal'] and started filing Original Applications oneafter the other. In some of the cases, there were interim ordersin favour of the petitioner and in some cases, final orders werepassed. Arising out of such orders, Writ Petitions started comingto this Court. The earliest writ petition that came to this Courtwas W.P. No. 18727 of 2001 wherein he had prayed for a direction tothe Tribunal to hear all his 14 final hearing and part heard caseswhich were posted on 13.8.2001 only after clearing the SubsistenceAllowance arrears to be paid to him at the rate of 75% of the pay forthe period from 15.9.1995 till the date (ie., 24.7.2001) as orderedby the Tribunal in O.A. No. 4096 of 2001. Since the office raisedmaintainability of such a writ petition, it cannot be posted beforethe Court and the matter was not admitted and was adjourned from timeto time. 5.As against the order of the Tribunal dated 29.6.2001 made inO.A. No. 4096 of 2001, the Director of Elementary Education filed awrit petition being W.P. No. 29158 of 2002 and the same was admittedon 08.8.2002 and also notice was ordered in the stay application. 6.Since the Tribunal was abolished, pending OriginalApplications were transferred to this Court. Hence, the variousOriginal Applications filed by the petitioner were re-numbered aswrit petitions. The following tabular statement will show theOriginal Applications filed by the petitioner and its correspondingwrit petition Nos. as well as the relief prayer sought for by thepetitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.W.P. No.(O.A. No.)PrayerRemarks1.18727 of 2001To issue a direction tothe Tribunal to hearall the 14 final andpart-heard matters onlyafter the subsistenceallowance @ 75% for theperiod from 15.9.2005till date is paid tohim as ordered by theTribunal in O.A.No.4096 of 2001.2.3013 of 2006 (O.A. No. 680 of1997)To call for theproceedings of theDirector of SchoolEducation and to givesuitable direction topost the petitioner asP.G. Teacher (Commerce)or Lecturer in DIET andto give less writingwork and moresupervisory work inview that he wasafflicted with writer'scramp and as certifiedby the Medical Boarddt. 09.6.1993.It was dismissed fordefault on03.10.2001 alongwith other case.M.A. No. 1216 of2002 was filed torestore 2 monthsafter the dismissal,The M.A. gottransferred to thisCourt and re-numbered as W.P.M.P.No. 14794 of 2005.3.3014 of 2006(O.A. No. 3373 of1997)To pay minimum annualinterest at the rate of18% for the salaryarrear already orderedin O.A. No. 2389 of1995 dated 26.02.1997and reimburse Rs.20,000/- spent fortowards variouslitigations https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.W.P. No.(O.A. No.)PrayerRemarks4.3015 of 2006(O.A. No. 5491 of1997)To direct therespondents to grantone advance incrementfalling on 01.11.1992and to pay the arrearsfrom 01.11.1992 tillthe date of the O.A.With interest at therate 18% pa and costRs.1000/-5.3016 of 2006(O.A. No. 5616 of1997)To sanction thirdincentive increment(fifth and sixthadvance increments)w.e.f. the date of hisacquiring M.Com. Degree(June 1989) afterreviewing G.O. Ms. No.1023 dated 09.12.1993as a consolation fornot providing anypromotional opportunityfor over 25 years.6.3017 of 2006(O.A. No. 8781 of1997)To issue order revokinghis suspension dated15.9.1995 and toreinstate him as P.G.Assistant and toregularise the periodfrom 15.9.1995 to15.10.1997 as duty.Second prayercovered by theDivision Bench orderdated 16.3.2007 inW.A. No. 3528 of2004 7.3018 of 2006(O.A. No. 10041 of1998)To quash the orderdated 13.5.1997 and topost him as DeputyInspector of Schoolsand to regularise theperiod from 01.10.1995onwards.The order dated13.5.1997 is a memoof additionalcharges under rule17(b). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.W.P. No.(O.A. No.)PrayerRemarks8.3019 of 2006(O.A. No. 10130 of1998)To quash theproceedings dated27.11.1997 revoking thesuspension. To serve acopy of legally validdocument in support ofthe revocation ofsuspension ordered bythe Director of SchoolEducation and toregularise the periodof non-employment from15.9.1995 to 31.10.1998(1) Copy of thesaid order directedto be given in O.A.No. 8781 of 1997dated 04.11.1997.(2) In O.A. No.1894 of 2000 dated28.4.2000, the saidorder was directedto be given.(3) In C.A. No.253 of 2000 dated11.8.2000, the orderwas given in theopen Court.9.3020 of 2006(O.A. No. 10613 of1998)To set aside theproceedings dated09.10.1998 and to posthim as AEEO or DeputyInspector of Schools.Request to post himas AEEO wasnegatived as no suchpost in Government10.3021 of 2006(O.A. No. 260 of1999)To include his name inthe panel as on01.01.1999 for P.G.Assistant / High SchoolHeadmaster for the year1998-99 withoutprejudice to thecharges pending againsthimCharge memo underRule 17(b) pendingchallenge in O.A.No. 7224/97 and O.A.No. 10041/9811.3022 of 2006(O.A. No. 1894 of2000)To quash theproceedings 24.9.1999and pay subsistenceallowance at the rateof 75% for the periodfrom15.9.1999 to29.02.2000 with 12%interest and to issuerevised scales of payand to give a freshorder of revocation ofsuspensionSecond prayercovered by theDivision Bench orderdated 16.3.2007 inW.A. No. 3528 of2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.W.P. No.(O.A. No.)PrayerRemarks12.3023 of 2006(O.A. No. 3130 of2001)To quash the orderdated 08.11.2000restoring him to thepost of BT TeacherThe order dated08.11.2000 is theposting order13.3024 of 2006(O.A. No. 5352 of2000)To post him as P.G.Assistant (Commerce)w.e.f. 13.6.1989 sincethe charge-memo dated18.12.1986 was quashedin O.A. No. 8077 of1997 dated 28.4.200014.32200 of 2005(O.A. No. 812 of2002)To revoke thesuspension dated02.3.1995 and post himat Chennai and also toregularise the periodfrom 02.3.1995 to08.11.2001 as duty andto treat the periodfrom 09.11.2001 to tilldate as compulsorywait.Covered by the orderof Division Benchdated 16.3.2007 inW.A. No. 3528 of200415.35442 of 2004(Directly filed inHigh Court)To give a direction sothat the petitioner besent to DistrictMedical Board Cuddalorefor medical opinionwith regard to skullfracture and writer'scramp and to giveappropriate postingorder as alreadyordered by the Tribunalin O.A. NO. 3198 of1997 dated 10.10.1999and consequentlyregularise the periodfrom 07.6.2004 till thedate of medicalopinion. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.W.P. No.(O.A. No.)PrayerRemarks16.37775 / 2007(directly filed inHigh Court)To direct the R1 totake steps to extendthe service of thepetitioner up to 65years / 60 years ortake steps to disposeof all the pendingcases of the petitionerwithin a reasonabletime7.The petitioner originally filed O.A. No. 7224 of 1997seeking to quash the charge-memo dated 14.3.1995. The said O.A. wasdismissed on 09.02.2001 with liberty granted to the Department toproceed with the enquiry and complete it within nine months.Liberty for the Department was granted for seeking further extension.Thereafter, in O.A. No. 8077 of 1997, the proceedings dated18.12.1986 was quashed by order dated 28.4.2000. 8.The alleged success in these two Original Applications madethe petitioner to go on filing application after application beforethe Tribunal with one prayer or the other. In some of the OriginalApplications, the same prayer was reiterated with slightmodifications. Pursuant to the order dated 28.4.2000, the suspensionwas revoked. Notwithstanding the same, he filed another O.A. 1894of 2000 seeking for serving of the authenticated order of revocationof suspension order. The Tribunal by order dated 28.4.2000, granteddirection to give a copy within two weeks. He filed ContemptApplication No. 253 of 2000 alleging that he was not given the copyof the said order which disabled him from joining at the new place.The Tribunal directed a copy of the order dated 05.5.2000 to beserved in the open Court and the same was recorded by the Tribunal on11.8.2000. Even thereafter as the petitioner had not joined duty, anew charge-memo was given to him. 9.By O.A. No. 3374 of 1997, the petitioner sought for adirection to consider his representation for promotion to the post ofDeputy Inspector of Schools. By order dated 09.7.1997, a directionwas also issued to consider his case. He also filed O.A. No. 8384of 1998 to take action for non-payment of the allowance. As per theorders of the Court dated 23.10.1998, it was directed to be paid.The said order was complied with by the Department on 24.4.1999.Therefore, his further Contempt Application 217 of 1999 was dismissedon 04.02.2000. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.On 03.10.2001, all his applications were listed before theTribunal for disposal. Since the petitioner did not appear, theTribunal dismissed all applications for default. In the orderdated 03.10.2001, it was recorded as follows:"The above batch of cases have been coming up forseveral occasions as 'part heard'. The applicant hasbeen asking adjournments every time, Indulgence hasbeen shown to him since he is appearing in person.But, yet the applicant is not ready to argue the casesand to have a disposal of the same.2.On 3.9.2001, he appeared in person and expressedsome difficulty in arguing the cases. Hence, fourweeks' time was granted at his request and the caseswere adjourned to 3.10.2001, i.e today at 2.15 P.M.3.When the matter was called at 2.45 P.M., today,the applicant was absent. There is also norepresentation on his behalf. In the circumstances,the applications are dismissed for default."11.The petitioner filed M.A. No. 1216 of 2002 to restore allthe dismissed Original Applications. But no orders were passed bythe Tribunal and after abolition of the Tribunal, it got transferredto this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.M.P. No. 14794 of 2005 andno orders were passed in the said petition till date.12.Subsequently, when the matters were listed, the learnedAdditional Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court thejudgment of the Division Bench of this Court, presided by P.Sathasivam, J. (as he then was), dated 16.3.2007 in W.A. No. 3528 of2004 relating to the issue between the same parties. It transpiresthat the petitioner filed W.P. No. 26068 of 2004 seeking for adirection to the first respondent State to instruct the secondrespondent District Elementary Educational Officer, Villupuram todespatch the Service Register to the third respondent Head Master ofthe Government High School to refix his pay in accordance with therevised scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in respect of VI PayCommission Scale. 13.The said writ petition was allowed with a direction that thepetitioner can get subsistence allowance even for the period afterrevocation of his suspension. This order was set aside on a writappeal filed by the State on 16.3.2007. A portion of paragraph 9 andparagraphs 10 to 12 of the judgment in the said Writ Appeal arereproduced below:Para 9:".... Hence it is clear that the petitioner, whoappeared as party in person before the Tamil Nadu StateAdministrative Tribunal was also aware of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ revocation of the suspension which was recorded and theapplication filed by him challenging the order ofsuspension was disposed of as infructuous.Para 10:From the order of the Joint Director of SchoolEducation (Personnel) dated 18.3.1997 it is clear thatthe petitioner's request for transferring him toadministrative post cannot be complied with and he wasdirected to join as School Assistant in the GovernmentHigher Secondary School, Kallakurichi, on or before1.4.1997. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 3473 of 1997before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal andprayed for direction to the respondents to treat thetwo spells of period from 2.3.1995 to 14.9.1995 andfrom 15.9.1995 onwards as duty period as full serviceand attendant benefits and also reinstate him asAssistant Educational Officer, Vikravandi. The saidapplication was disposed of by the Tribunal on 9.5.1997and the operative portion of the order passed by theTribunal is extracted hereunder:"6.As far as the contention thatwithout revoking the suspension order, the2nd respondent has issued posting, it has tobe mentioned that now the suspension orderhas been revoked and the copy of therevocation was also served on the applicantand recording the same, this Tribunaldismissed the O.A. 4305/95 as it has becomeinfructuous.7.In the result, this application isordered as follows;As-far-as the first spell i.e., 2.3.95to 14.9.95 is concerned orders have alreadybeen passed. With regard to 2nd spell, i.e.from 15.9.95 till date, no direction isgiven, because a direction which does notindicate definite date cannot be issued.Regarding the 3rd prayer, the respondents mayconsider the request of the applicant forposting as Assistant Educational Officer,pursuant to the order of this Tribunal,dated 1.4.93 in TA. 260/91 and OA. No.1654/93. The applicant is at liberty tomove this Tribunal, if there is any need, inthis regard."Petitioner's request for posting him as AssistantEducational Officer was also rejected and in spite of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the same petitioner having not joined as SchoolAssistant repeated posting orders are given andultimately petitioner reported to duty only on14.5.2004 A.N.Para 11:From the records and the affidavit filed by therespondents and the orders passed by the StateAdministrative Tribunal, we are of the view that thepetitioner was kept under suspension only from 2.3.1995to 15.9.1995 and he is entitled to get subsistenceallowance only for the above period. Non-joining ofthe petitioner inspite of the issuance of posting orderafter revocation of the suspension order is the faultof the petitioner, for which the department cannot beblamed. The petitioner even after receipt ofrevocation of suspension order with the posting orderrefused to join in the new place of posting andrequested to post him in the administrative wing viz.,as Assistant Educational Officer and the said requestwas also rejected by the department by citing theGovernment Orders. Hence there is no justificationon the part of the petitioner to claim salary from thedepartment after 30.9.1995. Petitioner can betreated to be on compulsory wait after revoking thesuspension order only upto 30.9.1995 ie., from19.9.1995 to 30.9.1995. Since the petitioner hasjoined duty only on 14.5.2004 the period from 1.10.1995to 14.5.2004 is to be regulated only according to theservice rules and for the said period petitioner is notentitled to get either salary or subsistence allowance.We are of the view that the order of the learned singleJudge was passed without keeping all the facts whichwere not placed by the respondents.Para 12:It is well settled in law that subsistence allowance ispayable only during the period in which the person waskept under suspension. After revocation ofsuspension and till the date of posting, one can betreated to be on compulsory wait, for which period theperson entitled to get full salary. Hence we areunable to accept the findings given by the learnedsingle Judge that the petitioner is entitled to getsubsistence allowance after the revocation ofsuspension order i.e., after 15.9.1995 and we are ofthe view that the petitioner is entitled to getsubsistence allowance only for the period from 2.3.1995to 15.9.1995 and full salary from 15.9.1995 to30.9.1995. Petitioner is not entitled to get eithersalary or subsistence allowance from 1.10.1995 till thedate of joining on 14.5.2004. The subsistence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allowance is already paid. Salary for the aboveperiod as referred to is not paid till date theappellants are directed to pay the same within a periodof four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order and similarly if the petitioner is not paidsalary from 14.5.2004 onwards, appellants are bound topay salary after considering the leaves taken by thepetitioner as to whether the petitioner is eligible toget sanction of the said leaves with or without pay.The appellants are directed to comply with the abovedirections and pass necessary orders within a period offour weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder."[Emphasis added]14.Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Review Applicationbeing R.A. No. 94 of 2007 seeking review of the aforesaid order.The said matter came to be posted before the Division Bench presidedby S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The Division Bench, by an order dated12.9.2007, dismissed the aforesaid Review Application by observing inparagraph 2, which is as follows:"The present review application has been preferredagainst the aforesaid Division Bench Judgment dated16th March 2007 in W.A. No. 3528 of 2004. In spiteof repeated callings nobody appeared for thepetitioner. We have perused the records andfindings; there is no error on record to review thematter. Accordingly, this review application standsdismissed. No costs."15.From the above narration of facts, it is clear that thepetitioner was conducting almost a raid on this Court as well as onthe Tribunal by filing case after case without any justification.Even though before this Court he had lost the writ petition, hesought for a direction in W.P. No. 37775 of 2007 to dispose of allhis petitions pending within a time frame but in W.P. No. 18727 of2001, he sought for a direction to the Tribunal not to hear all his14 final hearing and part heard cases which were posted on 13.8.2001except after clearing the Subsistence Allowance arrears to be paid tohim at the rate of 75% of the pay for the period from 15.9.1995 tilldate (ie., 24.7.2001) as ordered by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 4096 of2001. This kind of shifting stand of the petitioner was totallywithout any justification and he cannot treat the Court of law as aplay-field.16.As seen from the order of the Tribunal dated 03.10.2001(referred to above), on 03.9.2001, he sought for four weeks'adjournment and all his cases were directed to be posted on03.10.2001. When the matter was actually called on 03.10.2001, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ did not appear without any justification which necessitated theTribunal, to dismiss all his Original Applications listed on thatday. He filed only one Miscellaneous Application in M.A. No. 1216of 2002 to restore all the Original Applications along with aContempt Petition. That M.A. was numbered only arising out of O.A.No. 680 of 1997. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the saidapplication, the petitioner did not give any justifiable reason forbeing absent from appearing on more than one occasion. He merelystated that principles of natural justice requires a hearing to begiven to him. Even on that Miscellaneous Application, no orders werepassed by the Tribunal. Consequently, when it was transferred tothis Court, it was re-numbered as W.P.M.P. No. 14794 of 2005. 17.We do not find any justification given in the saidapplication so as to restore the Original Applications filed by himwhich he allowed to be dismissed for default. The conduct of thepetitioner before the Tribunal and before this Court clearly showsthat he has become a Court bird and his only pass time was to go onfiling case after case and appear as a party in person. Even afterrevocation of the suspension as early as 13.9.1995, the petitionerwas not inclined to join duty despite several reminders. It wasonly after nine years on 14.5.2004, he joined in a Government HighSchool at Mitta Mandagapattu. During the aforesaid period of nineyears, he never rendered any service in the Education Department andmade himself a nuisance of filing case after case before this Courtand before the Tribunal to get more or less similar reliefs. TheDivision Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 3528 of 2004 dated 16.3.2007and confirmed by R.A. No. 94 of 2007 dated 12.9.2007 hascategorically held that the petitioner was not eligible for anysalary for the period 01.10.1995 to 14.5.2004. This finding of theDivision Bench will clearly dispose of most of the writ petitions inwhich he seeks for salary for the aforesaid period together withinterest and also for consequent pay revision. 18.The other Original Applications transferred as writpetitions claiming for posting as P.G. Assistant and Deputy Inspectorof Schools can also never be considered in favour of the petitioneras there were no Service Rules providing for such a posting sinceposting as an AEEO is available only in the schools run under localbodies. The petitioner is also not eligible to get promotion whenhe never rendered any service for nine years ie., from 1995 to 2004.19.Considering in this backdrop, W.P.M.P. No. 14794 of 2005 isbereft of any reason and accordingly, we dismiss the same. Inview of the dismissal of the W.P.M.P. No. 14794 of 2005, the order ofthe Tribunal dated 03.10.2001 will stand confirmed and consequently,the following Original Applications (re-numbered Writ Petitions) willstand dismissed.(i)(O.A. No. 5491 of 1997)=W.P. No. 3015 of 2006(ii)(O.A. No. 680 of 1997)=W.P. No. 3013 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)(O.A. No. 3373 of 1997)=W.P. No. 3014 of 2006(iv)(O.A. No. 5616 of 1997)=W.P. No. 3016 of 2006(v)(O.A. No. 8781 of 1997)=W.P. No. 3017 of 2006(vi)(O.A. No. 10041 of 1998)=W.P. No. 3018 of 2006(vii)(O.A. No. 10130 of 1998)=W.P. No. 3019 of 2006(viii)(O.A. No. 10613 of 1998)=W.P. No. 3020 of 2006(ix)(O.A. No. 260 of 1999)=W.P. No. 3021 of 2006(x)(O.A. No. 1894 of 2000)=W.P. No. 3022 of 2006(xi)(O.A. No. 5352 of 2000)=W.P. No. 3024 of 2006(xii)(O.A. No. 3130 of 2001)=W.P. No. 3023 of 200620.The petitioner is also facing charge-memos dated 13.5.1997,31.12.2004 and 08.4.2005 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu CivilServices (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. An Enquiry Officer, viz.,the Chief Educational Officer, Villupuram, was also appointed toenquire in to the charges levelled against him and an enquiry noticewas also sent to him. The petitioner had not participated underthe speacious plea that various Applications are pending before theTribunal and before this Court.21.By this long drawn out exercise continued for over 12 years,the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on 31.12.2007.On a proposal being sent by the Chief Educational Officer, Villupuramand the Headmaster, High School, Mitta Mandagapattu, the petitionerwas permitted to retire without prejudice to the disciplinaryproceedings pending against him. It is for the petitioner toparticipate in the said enquiry and establish his innocence in orderto avoid any punishment being imposed on him. In many of theOriginal Applications and the writ petitions, the petitioner neverdisclosed the previous orders made by the Tribunal and such a conducton the part of the petitioner is highly reprehensible and deserves adeterrent action. Even before the Tribunal in all the O.As.against Column No. 8, he had brazenly stated that no previous O.As.are pending before any Court or Tribunal. This is nothing butcommitting perjury.22.The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1980 (3) SCC311 [Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh KhairIndustries and another] held that repeated filing of writ petitionsamounts to a criminal contempt and liable to be punished under theContempt of Courts Act, 1971. 23.Recently, the Supreme Court referred to the aforesaid casein Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of U.P.[(2008) 1 SCC 560]. In paragraph 16, speaking for the Bench, S.B.Sinha, J. had observed as follows:Para 16:"A writ remedy is an equitable one. A personapproaching a superior court must come with a pair ofclean hands. It not only should not suppress anymaterial fact, but also should not take recourse to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ legal proceedings over and over again which amounts toabuse of the process of law."24.Further, the conduct of the petitioner in that case wasspelt out in paragraph 10 of the said judgment, which is as follows:Para 10:"Although the prayer made in the four writ applicationsare apparently different, having gone through the writapplications, it became evident that the core issue ineach of the matter centres round recovery of the amountadvanced to the appellants by the bank. Evidently,orders passed at different stages of the proceedings asalso new proceedings based upon fresh calculation ofinterest on the principal sum had been in question fromtime to time. As indicated hereinbefore, even a publicinterest litigation was filed wherein also Appellant 2was a party. Maybe that validity of Section 35-A of theU.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 wasone of the issues raised therein but even the recoveryproceeding was the subject-matter thereof."Such conduct of a litigant was considered as an abuse of process oflaw by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court. 25.In the light of the above, all the writ petitions filed bythe petitioner will stand dismissed and the petitioner is entitled toget the relief only to the extent as determined by the Division Benchin W.A. No. 3528 of 2004 vide order dated 16.3.2007. 26.Since the issue in W.P. No. 29158 of 2002 filed by the Stateis also covered by the very same decision, we do not propose to passany special order in that writ petition and parties are covered bythe earlier Division Bench's order. As the petitioner waspermitted to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedingspending against him, it is for the petitioner to participate in thesaid enquiry without dragging the matter any further and he mustextend full co-operation.27.In view of the conduct of the petitioner as narrated above,we are constrained to direct the Registry not to number any of thefuture petitions filed by the petitioner without the leave of theCourt. This direction is given with a view to save the Court's timesince considerable time had been wasted by the petitioner in filingrepeated writ petitions. 28.Though we would have imposed a heavy cost on the petitioner,in the circumstances of the case, we are constrained to order onlyRs.5000/- as costs to be paid by the petitioner to the Tamil NaduState Legal Aid Services Authority within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

29.In so far as W.P. No. 35442 of 2004 is concerned, it isbeyond the purview of this Court to order any such medicalexamination of the petitioner. In so far as W.P. No. 37775 of2007 is concerned, it must be stated that it is beyond the scope ofthe writ jurisdiction. Further, in view of the subsequentretirement of the petitioner, that writ petition has also becomeinfructuous. In respect of W.P. No. 18727 of 2001 is concerned,that is also dismissed as the issue raised therein is covered by theDivision Bench order dated 16.3.2007 in W.A. No. 3528 of2004 30.All the writ petitions are dismissed and the connectedMiscellaneous Petitions are closed with cost to the extent indicatedabove in paragraph 28.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.GriTo1. The Director of Elementary Education Chennai2.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel)Chennai – 6.3.The Director of School Education,College Road, Chennai – 64.The Commissioner and Special Secretary to GovernmentEducation Department.Secretariat, Madras – 95.The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary)Director of School Education,Chennai – 6.6.The Chief Educational Officer,Villupuram7.The District Elementary Educational Officer,Villupuram.8.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel)Chennai -6. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.The Education Secretary,State of Tamilnadu,School Education Department,Secretariat, Chennai – 9.10.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer,Vikravandi.11.The Chief Secretary,State of Tamilnadu,Secretariat, Chennai – 9.12.The Tamilnadu State Legal Aid Services Authority,Chennai.13.The Sub Assistant Registrar,A.E.Section (Writs), High Court, Madras+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.23423Common Order in W. P. No. 18727 of 2001, etc.KLT(CO)SRA(11/06/2008)